DEDHIA PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

Brief facts, emanating from the record and pleadings of the parties, which need necessary mention for adjudication of the issues involved in this appeal are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the Asst. year 2005-06 declaring the loss of Rs. 882/-. The return was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act) and was accepted on 30/03/2007. Later on, the assessment was re-opened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26/03/2010. In response thereof the assessee asked for the reasons recorded for issuing notice and further requested to treat the return filed earlier u/s 139 of the Act as the return filed in response to the notice. Accordingly, copy of reasons recorded was supplied to the assessee. It was alleged in the reasons recorded for re-opening that the appellant company has received share application money of Rs. 4,00,000/- from Universal Credit & Securities Ltd. on 16/02/2005. The Assessing Officer issued show cause as to why the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- received from Universal Credit & Securities Ltd. should not be made. The appellant denied to have received the said amount however, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 4,00,000/-to the income of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-22, The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the same. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds:-

The assessee has also moved an application for allowing the following additional grounds:

At the very outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee which is against the basic principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the copy of notice dated 16.12.2010 submitted as a part of paper book and pointed out that the notice was sent to the address other than the address mentioned in the column of address of the assessee in Form No. 35. We have also noticed that the address mentioned on the notice is different from the address mentioned in Form 35. Though the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in his order that he has gone through the assessment order, perused the submissions made by the appellant and also discussed the case with the AR of the appellant but simultaneously, he has also mentioned on the first page of the impugned order that none appeared for the appellant. The above facts prima facie corroborate the contention of the assessee that he was not given proper opportunity of being heard. Hence, in our considered view, the assessee should be given opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

In view of the above facts after hearing the Ld. DR, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, and restore the file to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal afresh after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) as and when directed to do so and to co-operate with the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purpose.